![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
3479 death in 3rd age residences deceased with sympthoms compatible with coronavirus, not counted because have not been tested properly, only in the Comunidad de Madrid. 877 Castile and Leon. 143 in Navarre. 11 in Cantabria. 4510 total announced in Spain. The same concept for Catalonia or the Basque Country is 0, where all the deceased have been counted properly. https://www.europapress.es/madrid/noticia-comunidad-registra-4750-mayores-fallecidos-residencias-781-positivos-3479-sintomas-20200408132735.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.251 ( talk) 07:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
All-cause deaths in the U.S. are falling and are at a multi-year low. It follows from CDC [2], from the graph with blue bars. This is a key piece of information for an overview article on the covid pandemic. The graph could even be copied to Wikipedia since CDC is a state agency, from what I understand. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 06:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
NYT grossly misrepresents NYC deaths. It follows from NYT article making incorrect claims about double of usual deaths and showing a grossly misleading graph (or outright wrong) when compared with CDC1 and CDC2. I can hardly believe my eyes. Have I made a mistake? Please double check. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The current sentences on underreporting make it a limited and perhaps Western phenomenon (Italy, US), and consequently implicitly the high death toll mostly a Western issue. The underreporting is likely much more widespread and can be unintentional (lack of testing, counting methodology) or deliberate (covering up the true death toll). There's a range of countries with suspected significant undercounting, as reported by the better news media: Brazil [4], China [5], Iran [6], North Korea [7], Russia [8], and the UK [9]. In summary, the deadly impact of the pandemic is likely much bigger and much more global, and in case of deliberate underreporting connected to a wider (geo)political situation. Is there a reason why this isn't included in the article (in a balanced and well-sourced way)? Morgengave ( talk) 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Mistake in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.234 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Tenryuu: The discussion only seems to be about coronavirus cases, while here I am using it for population statistics. sam1370 ( talk) 04:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.
Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:
So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. -- Tiiliskivi ( talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people.I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:
Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
— User:Sapah3
@ Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." Iswearius ( talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Industry Specific Resources
Airline, Airport, and Transit Worker Fact Sheets Airline, airport, and transit workers may be at risk for exposure to COVID-19. CDC recommends steps to prevent exposure, which includes everyday actions to prevent the spread of respiratory illness. To learn more, fact sheets are available for airline, airport, and transit workers.
Small Businesses
Prepare your Small Business and Employees for the Effects of COVID-19 CDC has developed guidance to help small businesses limit the economic and community impacts of an outbreak of COVID-19. This new guidance provides steps to protect employees and prepare small businesses for disruption. A fact sheet also outlines 10 steps small business employers can take now to protect their employees’ health.
Healthcare Workers
Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators CDC is working with partners across the global supply chain to evaluate and respond to reported shortages in PPE, particularly N95 respirators. This week, CDC updated guidance on Strategies to Optimize the Supply of N95 Respirators and released an accompanying Summary for Healthcare Facilities.
Elastomeric Respirators for U.S. Healthcare Delivery During N95 Shortages This recorded webinar provides an overview of respiratory protection and guidance surrounding supply shortages. It also provides information on infection prevention measures, strategies for optimizing the supply of N95 respirators, and a broad overview of the use of elastomeric respirators in healthcare.
Updated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Burn Rate Calculator CDC designed the PPE Burn Rate Calculator to help healthcare and nonhealthcare systems, such as correctional facilities, track how quickly PPE will be used at those facilities. This week CDC updated the tool, so it can now calculate the average PPE consumption rate per patient. Facilities can enter the number of patients in their facility and track changes in PPE usage as the number of patients fluctuates.
Is this the best page to include some of this information? TMorata ( talk) 13:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I increasing think that showing covid-positive death counts without showing per capita figures is a disgrace and must stop. If you cannot publish per capita figures alongside, or at least average all-cause daily deaths in the region (say in 2017, we have data for that), don't show any counts at all and delegate that publishing task to sources that can do that.
(A similar discussion was Talk:2019–20 coronavirus_pandemic/Archive 27#Putting per capita figures into the article. It did not get anywhere. Something must be done. This must stop.)
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)I support this per Dan Polansky's rationale. It's not as vital as it is with the maps, since there's not the misleading implication that a measure of density is being displayed, but it'd still be very useful information for readers. Regarding how to implement, though, the table would need a new column each for cases, deaths, and recoveries, and there's definitely not room for three more columns, even if we move the references to the name column (which I think we should do regardless—there's no need for them to have their own column). Instead, I'd favor including a separate table in the article with the per capita counts.
It is pretty obvious. I don't know why it is not obvious to those "reliable" sources. [...] What these sources are doing is unethicalMaybe you are right. Or maybe not. In any case, this seems a perfect example of WP:GREATWRONGS. We do use cases/deaths per capita in some maps, which are already presented in some articles. There is some support by reliable sources to use per-capita counts for the purpose of colorizing maps. -- MarioGom ( talk) 11:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Instead of #Showing death counts without per capita is a disgrace, I propose to expand the table with average daily all-cause deaths for 2017. I have the data from ourworldindata, and since it needs no further update once the data is put there, I find this preferable. I have created a separate heading to obtain support. Please, let us publish data in proper context and maintain some basic ethics for publishing of epidemiological data. For reference: B:User:Dan_Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths in context, which gives me a good impression. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me give you a sample for selected countries (the only column that would be added would be 2017 Avg Daily Deaths):
Region Covid-Positive Deaths 2017 Avg Daily Deaths Ratio Algeria 193 436 0.44 Austria 273 217 1.26 Belgium 2240 285 7.86 Brazil 688 3528 0.20 Canada 381 730 0.52 China 3333 28036 0.12 Denmark 218 143 1.52 Ecuador 220 234 0.94 France 10328 1508 6.85 Germany 2017 2528 0.80 India 149 25270 0.01 Indonesia 240 4465 0.05 Iran 4003 993 4.03 Ireland 210 81 2.59 Italy 17127 1667 10.27 Mexico 141 1936 0.07 Netherlands 2248 393 5.72 Norway 93 107 0.87 Peru 107 376 0.28 Philippines 182 1747 0.10 Poland 136 1064 0.13 Portugal 345 304 1.13 Romania 209 728 0.29 South Korea 200 811 0.25 Spain 14555 1107 13.15 Sweden 695 241 2.88 Switzerland 846 168 5.04 Turkey 725 1053 0.69 United Kingdom 6159 1597 3.86 United States 12905 7564 1.71
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
re Iluvalar: I don't think the CDC plots cases relative to average daily death rate from 3 years before. First, that would assume that world death rates are stable. They are not. In 2-3 years some countries have non-negligible changes, usually decreases, but also increases (e.g. Syria). That way of averaging also assumes that death rate is perfectly stable across the whole year and can be averaged in this way, instead of using comparable periods such as quarters. And yes, it is WP:OR until you can find reliable sources, preferably in medicine, handling data in this way. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Country | Cases per Million Inhabitants (Rounded) |
Deaths per Million Inhabitants (Rounded) |
---|---|---|
Abkhazia | 4 | 0 |
Afghanistan | 16 | 0 |
Albania | 146 | 8 |
Algeria | 39 | 5 |
Andorra | 7518 | 322 |
Angola | 1 | 0 |
Anguilla | 202 | 0 |
Antigua and Barbuda | 197 | 10 |
Argentina | 42 | 2 |
Armenia | 317 | 4 |
Artsakh | 7 | 0 |
Aruba | 730 | 0 |
Australia | 242 | 2 |
Austria | 1511 | 36 |
Azerbaijan | 92 | 1 |
Bahamas | 106 | 21 |
Bahrain | 592 | 3 |
Bangladesh | 3 | 0 |
Barbados | 230 | 10 |
Belarus | 211 | 2 |
Belgium | 2314 | 262 |
Belize | 20 | 2 |
Benin | 3 | 0 |
Bermuda | 750 | 62 |
Bhutan | 7 | 0 |
Bolivia | 23 | 2 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 268 | 11 |
Botswana | 6 | 0 |
Brazil | 86 | 5 |
British Virgin Islands | 100 | 0 |
Brunei | 305 | 2 |
Bulgaria | 89 | 3 |
Burkina Faso | 21 | 1 |
Burundi | 0 | 0 |
Cambodia | 8 | 0 |
Cameroon | 30 | 0 |
Canada | 546 | 13 |
Cape Verde | 13 | 2 |
Cayman Islands | 684 | 15 |
Central African Republic | 1 | 0 |
Chad | 1 | 0 |
Chile | 313 | 3 |
China | 58 | 2 |
Colombia | 45 | 1 |
Congo | 8 | 1 |
Costa Rica | 107 | 1 |
Croatia | 367 | 5 |
Cuba | 46 | 1 |
Curaçao | 88 | 6 |
Cyprus | 632 | 11 |
Czech Republic | 523 | 11 |
DR Congo | 2 | 0 |
Denmark | 999 | 42 |
Djibouti | 139 | 1 |
Dominica | 209 | 0 |
Dominican Republic | 227 | 11 |
East Timor | 1 | 0 |
Ecuador | 284 | 16 |
Egypt | 17 | 1 |
El Salvador | 18 | 1 |
Equatorial Guinea | 13 | 0 |
Eritrea | 9 | 0 |
Estonia | 947 | 18 |
Eswatini | 11 | 0 |
Ethiopia | 1 | 0 |
Falkland Islands | 1563 | 0 |
Faroe Islands | 3530 | 0 |
Fiji | 18 | 0 |
Finland | 501 | 9 |
France | 1287 | 182 |
French Polynesia | 185 | 0 |
Gabon | 20 | 0 |
Gambia | 2 | 0 |
Georgia | 62 | 1 |
Germany | 1432 | 31 |
Ghana | 12 | 0 |
Gibraltar | 3650 | 0 |
Greece | 188 | 8 |
Greenland | 196 | 0 |
Grenada | 107 | 0 |
Guam | 742 | 23 |
Guatemala | 8 | 0 |
Guernsey | 3042 | 80 |
Guinea | 16 | 0 |
Guinea-Bissau | 22 | 0 |
Guyana | 47 | 8 |
Haiti | 3 | 0 |
Honduras | 42 | 3 |
Hong Kong | 132 | 1 |
Hungary | 122 | 8 |
Iceland | 4598 | 16 |
India | 5 | 0 |
Indonesia | 13 | 1 |
Iran | 818 | 51 |
Iraq | 31 | 2 |
Ireland | 1336 | 53 |
Isle of Man | 2281 | 12 |
Israel | 1099 | 10 |
Italy | 2384 | 303 |
Ivory Coast | 17 | 0 |
Jamaica | 23 | 1 |
Japan | 42 | 1 |
Jersey | 1713 | 28 |
Jordan | 35 | 1 |
Kazakhstan | 43 | 0 |
Kenya | 4 | 0 |
Kosovo | 126 | 4 |
Kuwait | 225 | 0 |
Kyrgyzstan | 46 | 1 |
Laos | 2 | 0 |
Latvia | 321 | 1 |
Lebanon | 89 | 3 |
Liberia | 8 | 1 |
Libya | 3 | 0 |
Liechtenstein | 2039 | 0 |
Lithuania | 358 | 6 |
Luxembourg | 4975 | 83 |
Macau | 66 | 0 |
Madagascar | 4 | 0 |
Malawi | 0 | 0 |
Malaysia | 133 | 2 |
Maldives | 51 | 0 |
Mali | 4 | 0 |
Malta | 709 | 4 |
Mauritania | 2 | 0 |
Mauritius | 248 | 7 |
Mexico | 27 | 2 |
Moldova | 536 | 11 |
Monaco | 2193 | 26 |
Mongolia | 5 | 0 |
Montenegro | 405 | 3 |
Montserrat | 1604 | 0 |
Morocco | 40 | 3 |
Mozambique | 1 | 0 |
Myanmar | 0 | 0 |
Namibia | 7 | 0 |
Nepal | 0 | 0 |
Netherlands | 1323 | 144 |
New Caledonia | 64 | 0 |
New Zealand | 204 | 0 |
Nicaragua | 1 | 0 |
Niger | 18 | 0 |
Nigeria | 1 | 0 |
North Macedonia | 342 | 15 |
Northern Cyprus | 270 | 9 |
Northern Mariana Islands | 196 | 36 |
Norway | 1165 | 21 |
Oman | 104 | 1 |
Pakistan | 21 | 0 |
Palestine | 53 | 0 |
Panama | 652 | 16 |
Papua New Guinea | 0 | 0 |
Paraguay | 17 | 1 |
Peru | 164 | 4 |
Philippines | 39 | 2 |
Poland | 150 | 5 |
Portugal | 1506 | 42 |
Puerto Rico | 227 | 12 |
Qatar | 914 | 2 |
Romania | 282 | 13 |
Russia | 81 | 1 |
Rwanda | 9 | 0 |
Saint Barthélemy | 613 | 0 |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 208 | 0 |
Saint Lucia | 78 | 0 |
Saint Martin | 895 | 56 |
Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 166 | 0 |
San Marino | 10246 | 1013 |
Saudi Arabia | 107 | 1 |
Senegal | 16 | 0 |
Serbia | 446 | 10 |
Seychelles | 113 | 0 |
Sierra Leone | 1 | 0 |
Singapore | 370 | 1 |
Sint Maarten | 1231 | 197 |
Slovakia | 128 | 0 |
Slovenia | 554 | 21 |
Somalia | 1 | 0 |
South Africa | 34 | 0 |
South Korea | 202 | 4 |
South Sudan | 0 | 0 |
Spain | 3334 | 339 |
Sri Lanka | 9 | 0 |
St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 108 | 0 |
Sudan | 0 | 0 |
Suriname | 17 | 2 |
Sweden | 937 | 84 |
Switzerland | 2811 | 111 |
Syria | 1 | 0 |
São Tomé and Príncipe | 20 | 0 |
Taiwan | 16 | 0 |
Tajikistan | 0 | 0 |
Tanzania | 1 | 0 |
Thailand | 37 | 0 |
Togo | 10 | 0 |
Trinidad and Tobago | 80 | 6 |
Tunisia | 55 | 2 |
Turkey | 508 | 11 |
Turks and Caicos Islands | 193 | 24 |
U.S. Virgin Islands | 478 | 10 |
Uganda | 1 | 0 |
Ukraine | 53 | 2 |
United Arab Emirates | 302 | 1 |
United Kingdom | 980 | 120 |
United States | 1428 | 51 |
Uruguay | 130 | 2 |
Uzbekistan | 18 | 0 |
Vatican City | 10013 | 0 |
Venezuela | 5 | 0 |
Vietnam | 3 | 0 |
Yemen | 0 | 0 |
Zambia | 2 | 0 |
Zimbabwe | 1 | 0 |
Åland Islands | 301 | 0 |
We have this in maps already. Not sure it is needed here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I created a separate per-capita table and put it to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. This was because people did not want the existing highly misleading table changed.
The table has now been moved to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory, which is better than nothing, but not really good enough, in my view.
To keep the table with absolute numbers without any relation to other numbers to provide meaning is bad enough; the table should ideally go. But to also remove the per-capita table from the same most often visited page is even worse.
I propose to put the per-capita table back to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic; the unethically misleading table with absolute numbers stays since there is no consensus for its replacement with the per-capita table until people see the light and the consensus changes.
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree with no specified date of origin even if there is a source because the Chinese pandemic article says it started on Dec 1 and in the Epidemiology subsection, there is sentence that states the earliest person found illed on Dec 1: "The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster." So mismatch occured between the main pandemic article and the mainland China article (the outbreak spreaded). The Supermind ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a redcat, the kind that gets automatically added when something is wrong with an {{ as of}} template in an article. I think it is coming from one of the transclusions in the lead (I took the lead to another page, and problem went along with it). TIA! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Highest death rate is in Algeria with 15.78 % based on 313 deaths and 1983 confirmed cases from Wikipedia article on coronavirus by countries and territories, here's the link of Algerian ministry of health http://covid19.sante.gov.dz/carte/ 156.206.132.80 ( talk) 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
weekday information. I guess it Is the shopping Friday. Give out Assignments to go to markets mo tue wd th fr sa via Regulations. Or is Friday the best and Monday worst? incubation vs weekday
Statistics daily infects globally (what is there) all countries all timeshifts Wikistallion ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so we currently have four sections tagged as too long, Germany, France, WHO, and Socioeconomics, each of which has had that tag for a few days. It isn't great for maintenance templates to persist in an article this prominent for that long, so let's try to get them taken care of. The latter two can be dealt with directly. The first two are excerpts. They can be dealt with either by (a) re-writing so that they have text unique to here, (b) using <noinclude>...</noinclude> at the source article to dictate what's transcluded to here, or (c) shortening where it's needed at the source article. I think (a) or (b) will be most appropriate here. Anyone want to take this on? It'll also help delay a little bit the technical limits this article is bumping up against, as mentioned above. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've just modified text on a couple of sentences citing sources which contain poor statistical evidence.
I think we need to be very careful when reporting early results of statistical studies. No doubt better and more thorough work is being done and will be published in due course. Robertpedley ( talk) 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Under WHO response measures
December 2019
"On December 31, Taiwanese health officials warned WHO that the coronavirus is transmissible between humans, but the WHO ignored the warnings and did not notify other countries.[805]"
This information isn't sufficiently backed up. The cited article is from The Independent Sentinel titled "Reporter says WHO admits it ignored Taiwan virus warnings in December" which is mostly just a photo of 3 paragraphs of an Economist article that says Taiwan asked WHO about human-to-human transmission and the WHO admittingly never replied. The paragraphs state that WHO ignores Taiwan NOT that Taiwan warned WHO about human-to-human transmission and WHO ignored the warning and failed to notify other countries. If the latter is true a better source should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiegoJane ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure this belongs in the lead
"with Italy showing the highest rate of 11.39 per cent. [1]"
The deaths in the Bahamas are greater. As is France by the way. [68] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add image:
Social distancing and self-isolation may reduce transmission of COVID-19 but not completely. PrimaryHealth ( talk) 05:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If Greenland have all people recovered from COVID-19 then can it go away from the chart? Hi poland ( talk) 08:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Greece's color on main map from 50-200 cases per mil to 200-500 cases per mil (current Greece status; 203 cases per mil). NicolasMartell96 ( talk) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Already done, the map maker fixed it a few hours ago
Benica11 (
talk).
00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says "territories". Wouldn't it be better to have it listed as "territories affcted"? Kika.txt ( talk) 03:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The infobox template listing countries data is hugely consequential since Google pulls from it when someone searches for 'covid-19 deaths' or something similar.
It is using a hugely unreliable source for the United States data.
The United States data is supplied by this website: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en which states that .
The main webpage is in Chinese https://www.1point3acres.com/ which claims to be a "media-based tracker"
Following through its links you get to a medium blog post here: https://medium.com/1point3acres/about which confirms that, apparently, the site is run by Peter Sun, an undergraduate student at Duke.
Its inconsistencies are clear - the homepage claims its "media-based" but the tracker that the wikipedia page is actually linked to lists the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) as the source of its data (here: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en scroll down).
Clicking on the CDC link takes you only to the CDC's homepage.
If you actually go to the CDC's official count, their cases are significantly different
As of 5:47am EST April 15:
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en count is 26,114 CDC official count is 22,252 (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html )
This is a huge discrepancy.
We should not allow a totally unverified webpage run by an individual take this prominence over a government source on one of the most important wikipedia entries. While Peter Sun's page includes both US and Canadian data it is only being used for the US data on wikipedia - Canada's data is CTV News which is a comparatively reliable source.
I therefore propose that the numbers and source are immediately corrected to the CDC official government page, which is what Peter Sun cites on his page for his United States level statistics, so he should not have grounds to object. N0thingbetter ( talk) 10:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I'm aware of
WP:NOTFORUM, but I feel this is the best place to say this, so maybe make an exception just this once?
Thank you to everyone who has worked to make Wikipedia one of the best places to get information on the pandemic, going over every detail, singling out misinformation, and providing the world with knowledge that is incredibly important during these times. To everyone who has worked on the Coronavirus Pandemic articles, everyone from the biggest contributor to the person who made a single minor edit to fix a typo: Thank you so much for helping keep the world safe. This article is of unimaginable importance, and doing it well is vital. Thank you for not just doing it well, but having a quality standard above nearly everyone's expectations.
Thanks you all. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Covidiot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for the map at the beginning of the article to have a higher category than just 1000+ cases, because then there is no distinction between 1,000 and 100,000 cases. ItsDaBunnyYT ( talk) 21:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would one count NATO on the list of sovereign territories ? Makes no sense. Please remove it, and leave as before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Should deaths of notable (celebrities, etc) people, such as Rick May, be listed on this page? Mount2010 ( talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that when one hovers over "Iran" in the table of cases, deaths etc. by country there is this note:
2. Non-official sources inside and outside Iran report significantly higher numbers of infected and dead.[66][67][68][69]
If that's worthy of being noted, should there not also be a note on the implausibility of China's numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.167.206 ( talk • contribs)
50 dead in Qom alone? Our official numbers claim (see Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Iran medical cases chart) 12 deaths in the entire republic the day that legislator's claim was made. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 00:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
abnormal fit to a quadraticclaim (which is the only remotely substantive remark you made), the cited paper that Piper42 added is explicitly quoted in the abstract as
Contrary to the usual exponential growth, a quadratic growth is the result of control interventions. It can be explained by spreading on the periphery of a bulk structure, which can be geometrical or sociological nature.Nothing about massaged statistics there.
I read why you are using this third party source, but is there any accountability? Who decided that it's reliable ? Read the disclaimer at the bottom of their website. Is Wikipedia promoting https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en ? CDC is a government agency and is therefore accountable but 1p3a... // Eatcha ( talk) 08:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<ref name=":7">{{cite web |url=https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/features/102465.html |title=Severe Respiratory Disease associated with a Novel Infectious Agent |publisher=Government of Hong Kong |access-date=1 February 2020}}</ref> [1]
<ref name=":8">{{cite web |url=https://www.moh.gov.sg/2019-ncov-wuhan |title=Updates on Wuhan Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Local Situation |work=MoH.gov.sg |publisher=[[Ministry of Health of Singapore]] |access-date=1 February 2020}}</ref> [2] Randomuser9327 ( talk) 08:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
So, why are the two words used interchangeably? For example, the article reads: "The peak and ultimate duration of the outbreak are uncertain and may differ by location."
An outbreak is a sudden occurrence of something unwelcome, such as war or disease. So an outbreak of a pandemic is not a pandemic itself. 85.193.250.200 ( talk) 12:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! In 'International conveyances' some of them are national: f.e., Charles de Gaulle is 100% from France and USS Theodore Roosevelt is 100% from USA. National flags are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.172.131 ( talk) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has once against hit the
post-expand include size software limits. In the rendered source I see #invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups
instead of the expanded
COVID-19 template, which means that as a fallback, the software decided not to expand the COVID-19 template. Looking at the source (Ctrl-u in firefox) shows "postexpandincludesize":{"value":2095097,"limit":2097152
} at the bottom, so that without the COVID-19 template, the post-expand-include-size (PEIS) is just a tiny bit under the limit. 2000 more characters of templated material would hit the limit again.
So once again (this happened before - search the archives), some material - with a fair amount of template usage - needs to be WP:SPLIT off. Boud ( talk) 18:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"postexpandincludesize":{"value":1712316,"limit":2097152}. However, I suspect that removing the main per-territory-cases-deaths table would be strongly opposed, and much less likely to gain consensus than removing those two new sections - which are clearly important, but there are many important subtopics, and they are new; not all subtoics can be included, and new ones would have to gain consensus to push out old ones.
It's now 4632 deaths according to worldometers. [1]
"In China, estimates for the death-to-case ratio decreased from 17.3 per cent (for those with onset of symptoms from 1 to 10 January 2020) to 0.7 per cent (for those with onset of symptoms after 1 February 2020)." ( citation)
The above sentence was deleted and then restored some time ago. I'd like to delete it again... Early on, this statistic sounded very promising and it was widely cited. Now it sounds unlikely or at least irrelevant given more recent data. The world average death-to-case ratio above 6%. Even assuming that the data was accurate at that point in time, this crude fatality ratio accounts only for patients with symptom onset within the prior 19 days. The mean time to death is 18 days. Even in South Korea, where testing is very broad, they've only achieved a D/C ratio of 2.1%. - Wikmoz ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
@ John Cummings: you just added two new sections, one on the impact of the pandemic on domestic violence, and one on the differing medical impact of the virus by sex. Per WP:DUE, I think we can fit only maybe two sentences on domestic violence in an article this high-level, and not as a separate section. For the section on sex, I think we'd be able to fit more at Coronavirus disease 2019, but again, here there can be a sentence or two at most, and not a separate section. Would you be willing to make those changes yourself? If not, I expect someone else here may need to; there just isn't room (in either a technical or editorial sense). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Condemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
it's irresponsible not to mention treatment with hydroxychloroquine— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4880:a5e0:3507:58a2:6ed5:97f6 ( talk • contribs)
By April, four potential post-infection therapies – favipiravir, remdesivir, lopinavir and hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine) – were in the final stage of human testing.
On 12 April, a preliminary clinical trial conducted at a hospital in Brazil was stopped when several people given high doses of chloroquine for COVID-19 infection developed irregular heart rates, causing 11 deaths.[68][85]- see therapeutic index for more details of the general idea of "chloroquine kills SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, and in slightly higher doses than what is needed for malaria, kills the in vivo hosts".
Remdesivir appears to be the most promising.[117]could be extended to something like "Remdesivir appears to be the most promising,[117] while hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have a high risk of lethal overdose[ref] and as of 17 April 2020 [update] have no clinical evidence in favour of their usage for COVID-19, gained significant media attention.[ref]" Boud ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
When I look at the UK page it lists deaths from hospital figures AND in one place deaths on death certificates. I realise that each country has different ways of accounting. BUT in the case on this page it is a total to date - should these extra 6000 or so deaths also be included with a footnote. I have not done that as it would be quite contentious due to the implications of total numbers. But it would make sense to include all deaths - if not why not?
Ahecht has raised the issue we were noticing the other day of reference tooltips not being displayed because of WP:PEIS. I'm opening this conversation to explore what our options are to deal with this, and would be curious to hear from those with more technical expertise. Is there any way to increase the limit? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Rawls, John (1971). [http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA1 ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00078-0
{{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|short=true}}
which uses 49,360 bytes.{{cite xxx}}
templates in the References section (and many more in the article). Removing the 359 templates saved 562,000 bytes.On 23 March, it was reported that New York City had 10,700 cases of the coronavirus, more than the total number of cases in South Korea.More than total of South Korea? So what? Yes, the source mentions it, but it's inane word filling. -- MarioGom ( talk) 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
3479 death in 3rd age residences deceased with sympthoms compatible with coronavirus, not counted because have not been tested properly, only in the Comunidad de Madrid. 877 Castile and Leon. 143 in Navarre. 11 in Cantabria. 4510 total announced in Spain. The same concept for Catalonia or the Basque Country is 0, where all the deceased have been counted properly. https://www.europapress.es/madrid/noticia-comunidad-registra-4750-mayores-fallecidos-residencias-781-positivos-3479-sintomas-20200408132735.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.251 ( talk) 07:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
All-cause deaths in the U.S. are falling and are at a multi-year low. It follows from CDC [2], from the graph with blue bars. This is a key piece of information for an overview article on the covid pandemic. The graph could even be copied to Wikipedia since CDC is a state agency, from what I understand. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 06:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
NYT grossly misrepresents NYC deaths. It follows from NYT article making incorrect claims about double of usual deaths and showing a grossly misleading graph (or outright wrong) when compared with CDC1 and CDC2. I can hardly believe my eyes. Have I made a mistake? Please double check. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The current sentences on underreporting make it a limited and perhaps Western phenomenon (Italy, US), and consequently implicitly the high death toll mostly a Western issue. The underreporting is likely much more widespread and can be unintentional (lack of testing, counting methodology) or deliberate (covering up the true death toll). There's a range of countries with suspected significant undercounting, as reported by the better news media: Brazil [4], China [5], Iran [6], North Korea [7], Russia [8], and the UK [9]. In summary, the deadly impact of the pandemic is likely much bigger and much more global, and in case of deliberate underreporting connected to a wider (geo)political situation. Is there a reason why this isn't included in the article (in a balanced and well-sourced way)? Morgengave ( talk) 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Mistake in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.33.234 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Tenryuu: The discussion only seems to be about coronavirus cases, while here I am using it for population statistics. sam1370 ( talk) 04:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence about xenophobia and racism related to the pandemic keeps getting edited back and forth by me and other users, so I believe it's appropriate to create an RfC about it. The current formatting of the sentence is "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online as well as xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people, people of Asian descent, and others from hotspots.", added by me.
Three versions of the sentence have been included lately:
So I am asking, which the three versions is the most appropriate and neutral. It's also worth asking, if the word "Asians" should specify "East Asians", considering Asian is quite a wide term, at least in most usages. -- Tiiliskivi ( talk) 11:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the virus have spread online and there have been incidents of xenophobia and racism against Chinese and other East and Southeast Asian people.I think the "and there have been incidents of" was better, for the reason you mentioned that xenophobia hasn't just been online. The "others from hotspots" was language I added to consolidate after someone else added a full sentence about discrimination against Europeans, which was way too much in my view. At that point, I used "against Chinese people, other Asians, and others" but it was subsequently changed by someone who reasonably objected that "Asians" was too broad a category, given that there hasn't been significant discrimination against e.g. Indians (it had also been that way at some prior point, so yeah, lots of back and forth, and thanks for opening a forum for discussion about this). There is also room for discussion about "Asian" vs. "Asian descent" vs. "Asian descent or appearance". It gets tricky. I support option 2 since most of the incidents have been against Asian people, so that should be noted, but not to the total exclusion of incidents against others. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 11:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm separating out this question since it's distinct from the main one asked in the RfC above. We have a whole bunch of possible alternatives:
Any of these alternatives could also be used without the clause specifically about Chinese people. What do you all think is the proper balance between precision and conciseness here? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"Asian" should be changed to "East Asian and Southeast Asian". So far only Asians that have East Asian features are facing discrimination (that includes many Southeast Asians). Some Indians (South Asians), like the incident in Israel, have faced discrimination but that's only because of their East Asian features. Most Indians with typical South Asian features aren't facing discrimination, neither are Central Asians or Southeast Asians like Malays, Indonesians or East Timorese who mostly have typical Southeast Asian features.
— User:Sapah3
@ Sdkb: - May I suggest "...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese and those perceived as being Chinese, as well as against people from emergent hotspots around the globe." Iswearius ( talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer #3 but without the “Chinese people,” this is one of those things that gets really complicated though... By Chinese people we generally mean all people of Chinese descent, but what should we say when we have a case like Taiwan or Singapore where people of Chinese descent are discriminating against people of Chinese national origin? If the context is generalized global racism/xenophobia/etc then we should be as broad as possible because from news reports it seems like people from Vietnam, South Korea, etc are being just as victimized in countries like the USA, UK, South Africa, etc as those from China. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 15:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Industry Specific Resources
Airline, Airport, and Transit Worker Fact Sheets Airline, airport, and transit workers may be at risk for exposure to COVID-19. CDC recommends steps to prevent exposure, which includes everyday actions to prevent the spread of respiratory illness. To learn more, fact sheets are available for airline, airport, and transit workers.
Small Businesses
Prepare your Small Business and Employees for the Effects of COVID-19 CDC has developed guidance to help small businesses limit the economic and community impacts of an outbreak of COVID-19. This new guidance provides steps to protect employees and prepare small businesses for disruption. A fact sheet also outlines 10 steps small business employers can take now to protect their employees’ health.
Healthcare Workers
Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators CDC is working with partners across the global supply chain to evaluate and respond to reported shortages in PPE, particularly N95 respirators. This week, CDC updated guidance on Strategies to Optimize the Supply of N95 Respirators and released an accompanying Summary for Healthcare Facilities.
Elastomeric Respirators for U.S. Healthcare Delivery During N95 Shortages This recorded webinar provides an overview of respiratory protection and guidance surrounding supply shortages. It also provides information on infection prevention measures, strategies for optimizing the supply of N95 respirators, and a broad overview of the use of elastomeric respirators in healthcare.
Updated Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Burn Rate Calculator CDC designed the PPE Burn Rate Calculator to help healthcare and nonhealthcare systems, such as correctional facilities, track how quickly PPE will be used at those facilities. This week CDC updated the tool, so it can now calculate the average PPE consumption rate per patient. Facilities can enter the number of patients in their facility and track changes in PPE usage as the number of patients fluctuates.
Is this the best page to include some of this information? TMorata ( talk) 13:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I increasing think that showing covid-positive death counts without showing per capita figures is a disgrace and must stop. If you cannot publish per capita figures alongside, or at least average all-cause daily deaths in the region (say in 2017, we have data for that), don't show any counts at all and delegate that publishing task to sources that can do that.
(A similar discussion was Talk:2019–20 coronavirus_pandemic/Archive 27#Putting per capita figures into the article. It did not get anywhere. Something must be done. This must stop.)
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 08:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)I support this per Dan Polansky's rationale. It's not as vital as it is with the maps, since there's not the misleading implication that a measure of density is being displayed, but it'd still be very useful information for readers. Regarding how to implement, though, the table would need a new column each for cases, deaths, and recoveries, and there's definitely not room for three more columns, even if we move the references to the name column (which I think we should do regardless—there's no need for them to have their own column). Instead, I'd favor including a separate table in the article with the per capita counts.
It is pretty obvious. I don't know why it is not obvious to those "reliable" sources. [...] What these sources are doing is unethicalMaybe you are right. Or maybe not. In any case, this seems a perfect example of WP:GREATWRONGS. We do use cases/deaths per capita in some maps, which are already presented in some articles. There is some support by reliable sources to use per-capita counts for the purpose of colorizing maps. -- MarioGom ( talk) 11:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Instead of #Showing death counts without per capita is a disgrace, I propose to expand the table with average daily all-cause deaths for 2017. I have the data from ourworldindata, and since it needs no further update once the data is put there, I find this preferable. I have created a separate heading to obtain support. Please, let us publish data in proper context and maintain some basic ethics for publishing of epidemiological data. For reference: B:User:Dan_Polansky/COVID-19#Deaths in context, which gives me a good impression. -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Let me give you a sample for selected countries (the only column that would be added would be 2017 Avg Daily Deaths):
Region Covid-Positive Deaths 2017 Avg Daily Deaths Ratio Algeria 193 436 0.44 Austria 273 217 1.26 Belgium 2240 285 7.86 Brazil 688 3528 0.20 Canada 381 730 0.52 China 3333 28036 0.12 Denmark 218 143 1.52 Ecuador 220 234 0.94 France 10328 1508 6.85 Germany 2017 2528 0.80 India 149 25270 0.01 Indonesia 240 4465 0.05 Iran 4003 993 4.03 Ireland 210 81 2.59 Italy 17127 1667 10.27 Mexico 141 1936 0.07 Netherlands 2248 393 5.72 Norway 93 107 0.87 Peru 107 376 0.28 Philippines 182 1747 0.10 Poland 136 1064 0.13 Portugal 345 304 1.13 Romania 209 728 0.29 South Korea 200 811 0.25 Spain 14555 1107 13.15 Sweden 695 241 2.88 Switzerland 846 168 5.04 Turkey 725 1053 0.69 United Kingdom 6159 1597 3.86 United States 12905 7564 1.71
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
re Iluvalar: I don't think the CDC plots cases relative to average daily death rate from 3 years before. First, that would assume that world death rates are stable. They are not. In 2-3 years some countries have non-negligible changes, usually decreases, but also increases (e.g. Syria). That way of averaging also assumes that death rate is perfectly stable across the whole year and can be averaged in this way, instead of using comparable periods such as quarters. And yes, it is WP:OR until you can find reliable sources, preferably in medicine, handling data in this way. -- MarioGom ( talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Country | Cases per Million Inhabitants (Rounded) |
Deaths per Million Inhabitants (Rounded) |
---|---|---|
Abkhazia | 4 | 0 |
Afghanistan | 16 | 0 |
Albania | 146 | 8 |
Algeria | 39 | 5 |
Andorra | 7518 | 322 |
Angola | 1 | 0 |
Anguilla | 202 | 0 |
Antigua and Barbuda | 197 | 10 |
Argentina | 42 | 2 |
Armenia | 317 | 4 |
Artsakh | 7 | 0 |
Aruba | 730 | 0 |
Australia | 242 | 2 |
Austria | 1511 | 36 |
Azerbaijan | 92 | 1 |
Bahamas | 106 | 21 |
Bahrain | 592 | 3 |
Bangladesh | 3 | 0 |
Barbados | 230 | 10 |
Belarus | 211 | 2 |
Belgium | 2314 | 262 |
Belize | 20 | 2 |
Benin | 3 | 0 |
Bermuda | 750 | 62 |
Bhutan | 7 | 0 |
Bolivia | 23 | 2 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 268 | 11 |
Botswana | 6 | 0 |
Brazil | 86 | 5 |
British Virgin Islands | 100 | 0 |
Brunei | 305 | 2 |
Bulgaria | 89 | 3 |
Burkina Faso | 21 | 1 |
Burundi | 0 | 0 |
Cambodia | 8 | 0 |
Cameroon | 30 | 0 |
Canada | 546 | 13 |
Cape Verde | 13 | 2 |
Cayman Islands | 684 | 15 |
Central African Republic | 1 | 0 |
Chad | 1 | 0 |
Chile | 313 | 3 |
China | 58 | 2 |
Colombia | 45 | 1 |
Congo | 8 | 1 |
Costa Rica | 107 | 1 |
Croatia | 367 | 5 |
Cuba | 46 | 1 |
Curaçao | 88 | 6 |
Cyprus | 632 | 11 |
Czech Republic | 523 | 11 |
DR Congo | 2 | 0 |
Denmark | 999 | 42 |
Djibouti | 139 | 1 |
Dominica | 209 | 0 |
Dominican Republic | 227 | 11 |
East Timor | 1 | 0 |
Ecuador | 284 | 16 |
Egypt | 17 | 1 |
El Salvador | 18 | 1 |
Equatorial Guinea | 13 | 0 |
Eritrea | 9 | 0 |
Estonia | 947 | 18 |
Eswatini | 11 | 0 |
Ethiopia | 1 | 0 |
Falkland Islands | 1563 | 0 |
Faroe Islands | 3530 | 0 |
Fiji | 18 | 0 |
Finland | 501 | 9 |
France | 1287 | 182 |
French Polynesia | 185 | 0 |
Gabon | 20 | 0 |
Gambia | 2 | 0 |
Georgia | 62 | 1 |
Germany | 1432 | 31 |
Ghana | 12 | 0 |
Gibraltar | 3650 | 0 |
Greece | 188 | 8 |
Greenland | 196 | 0 |
Grenada | 107 | 0 |
Guam | 742 | 23 |
Guatemala | 8 | 0 |
Guernsey | 3042 | 80 |
Guinea | 16 | 0 |
Guinea-Bissau | 22 | 0 |
Guyana | 47 | 8 |
Haiti | 3 | 0 |
Honduras | 42 | 3 |
Hong Kong | 132 | 1 |
Hungary | 122 | 8 |
Iceland | 4598 | 16 |
India | 5 | 0 |
Indonesia | 13 | 1 |
Iran | 818 | 51 |
Iraq | 31 | 2 |
Ireland | 1336 | 53 |
Isle of Man | 2281 | 12 |
Israel | 1099 | 10 |
Italy | 2384 | 303 |
Ivory Coast | 17 | 0 |
Jamaica | 23 | 1 |
Japan | 42 | 1 |
Jersey | 1713 | 28 |
Jordan | 35 | 1 |
Kazakhstan | 43 | 0 |
Kenya | 4 | 0 |
Kosovo | 126 | 4 |
Kuwait | 225 | 0 |
Kyrgyzstan | 46 | 1 |
Laos | 2 | 0 |
Latvia | 321 | 1 |
Lebanon | 89 | 3 |
Liberia | 8 | 1 |
Libya | 3 | 0 |
Liechtenstein | 2039 | 0 |
Lithuania | 358 | 6 |
Luxembourg | 4975 | 83 |
Macau | 66 | 0 |
Madagascar | 4 | 0 |
Malawi | 0 | 0 |
Malaysia | 133 | 2 |
Maldives | 51 | 0 |
Mali | 4 | 0 |
Malta | 709 | 4 |
Mauritania | 2 | 0 |
Mauritius | 248 | 7 |
Mexico | 27 | 2 |
Moldova | 536 | 11 |
Monaco | 2193 | 26 |
Mongolia | 5 | 0 |
Montenegro | 405 | 3 |
Montserrat | 1604 | 0 |
Morocco | 40 | 3 |
Mozambique | 1 | 0 |
Myanmar | 0 | 0 |
Namibia | 7 | 0 |
Nepal | 0 | 0 |
Netherlands | 1323 | 144 |
New Caledonia | 64 | 0 |
New Zealand | 204 | 0 |
Nicaragua | 1 | 0 |
Niger | 18 | 0 |
Nigeria | 1 | 0 |
North Macedonia | 342 | 15 |
Northern Cyprus | 270 | 9 |
Northern Mariana Islands | 196 | 36 |
Norway | 1165 | 21 |
Oman | 104 | 1 |
Pakistan | 21 | 0 |
Palestine | 53 | 0 |
Panama | 652 | 16 |
Papua New Guinea | 0 | 0 |
Paraguay | 17 | 1 |
Peru | 164 | 4 |
Philippines | 39 | 2 |
Poland | 150 | 5 |
Portugal | 1506 | 42 |
Puerto Rico | 227 | 12 |
Qatar | 914 | 2 |
Romania | 282 | 13 |
Russia | 81 | 1 |
Rwanda | 9 | 0 |
Saint Barthélemy | 613 | 0 |
Saint Kitts and Nevis | 208 | 0 |
Saint Lucia | 78 | 0 |
Saint Martin | 895 | 56 |
Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 166 | 0 |
San Marino | 10246 | 1013 |
Saudi Arabia | 107 | 1 |
Senegal | 16 | 0 |
Serbia | 446 | 10 |
Seychelles | 113 | 0 |
Sierra Leone | 1 | 0 |
Singapore | 370 | 1 |
Sint Maarten | 1231 | 197 |
Slovakia | 128 | 0 |
Slovenia | 554 | 21 |
Somalia | 1 | 0 |
South Africa | 34 | 0 |
South Korea | 202 | 4 |
South Sudan | 0 | 0 |
Spain | 3334 | 339 |
Sri Lanka | 9 | 0 |
St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 108 | 0 |
Sudan | 0 | 0 |
Suriname | 17 | 2 |
Sweden | 937 | 84 |
Switzerland | 2811 | 111 |
Syria | 1 | 0 |
São Tomé and Príncipe | 20 | 0 |
Taiwan | 16 | 0 |
Tajikistan | 0 | 0 |
Tanzania | 1 | 0 |
Thailand | 37 | 0 |
Togo | 10 | 0 |
Trinidad and Tobago | 80 | 6 |
Tunisia | 55 | 2 |
Turkey | 508 | 11 |
Turks and Caicos Islands | 193 | 24 |
U.S. Virgin Islands | 478 | 10 |
Uganda | 1 | 0 |
Ukraine | 53 | 2 |
United Arab Emirates | 302 | 1 |
United Kingdom | 980 | 120 |
United States | 1428 | 51 |
Uruguay | 130 | 2 |
Uzbekistan | 18 | 0 |
Vatican City | 10013 | 0 |
Venezuela | 5 | 0 |
Vietnam | 3 | 0 |
Yemen | 0 | 0 |
Zambia | 2 | 0 |
Zimbabwe | 1 | 0 |
Åland Islands | 301 | 0 |
We have this in maps already. Not sure it is needed here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I created a separate per-capita table and put it to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. This was because people did not want the existing highly misleading table changed.
The table has now been moved to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory, which is better than nothing, but not really good enough, in my view.
To keep the table with absolute numbers without any relation to other numbers to provide meaning is bad enough; the table should ideally go. But to also remove the per-capita table from the same most often visited page is even worse.
I propose to put the per-capita table back to 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic; the unethically misleading table with absolute numbers stays since there is no consensus for its replacement with the per-capita table until people see the light and the consensus changes.
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree with no specified date of origin even if there is a source because the Chinese pandemic article says it started on Dec 1 and in the Epidemiology subsection, there is sentence that states the earliest person found illed on Dec 1: "The earliest known person with symptoms was later discovered to have fallen ill on 1 December 2019, and that person did not have visible connections with the later wet market cluster." So mismatch occured between the main pandemic article and the mainland China article (the outbreak spreaded). The Supermind ( talk) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a redcat, the kind that gets automatically added when something is wrong with an {{ as of}} template in an article. I think it is coming from one of the transclusions in the lead (I took the lead to another page, and problem went along with it). TIA! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Highest death rate is in Algeria with 15.78 % based on 313 deaths and 1983 confirmed cases from Wikipedia article on coronavirus by countries and territories, here's the link of Algerian ministry of health http://covid19.sante.gov.dz/carte/ 156.206.132.80 ( talk) 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
weekday information. I guess it Is the shopping Friday. Give out Assignments to go to markets mo tue wd th fr sa via Regulations. Or is Friday the best and Monday worst? incubation vs weekday
Statistics daily infects globally (what is there) all countries all timeshifts Wikistallion ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so we currently have four sections tagged as too long, Germany, France, WHO, and Socioeconomics, each of which has had that tag for a few days. It isn't great for maintenance templates to persist in an article this prominent for that long, so let's try to get them taken care of. The latter two can be dealt with directly. The first two are excerpts. They can be dealt with either by (a) re-writing so that they have text unique to here, (b) using <noinclude>...</noinclude> at the source article to dictate what's transcluded to here, or (c) shortening where it's needed at the source article. I think (a) or (b) will be most appropriate here. Anyone want to take this on? It'll also help delay a little bit the technical limits this article is bumping up against, as mentioned above. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've just modified text on a couple of sentences citing sources which contain poor statistical evidence.
I think we need to be very careful when reporting early results of statistical studies. No doubt better and more thorough work is being done and will be published in due course. Robertpedley ( talk) 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Under WHO response measures
December 2019
"On December 31, Taiwanese health officials warned WHO that the coronavirus is transmissible between humans, but the WHO ignored the warnings and did not notify other countries.[805]"
This information isn't sufficiently backed up. The cited article is from The Independent Sentinel titled "Reporter says WHO admits it ignored Taiwan virus warnings in December" which is mostly just a photo of 3 paragraphs of an Economist article that says Taiwan asked WHO about human-to-human transmission and the WHO admittingly never replied. The paragraphs state that WHO ignores Taiwan NOT that Taiwan warned WHO about human-to-human transmission and WHO ignored the warning and failed to notify other countries. If the latter is true a better source should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiegoJane ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure this belongs in the lead
"with Italy showing the highest rate of 11.39 per cent. [1]"
The deaths in the Bahamas are greater. As is France by the way. [68] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add image:
Social distancing and self-isolation may reduce transmission of COVID-19 but not completely. PrimaryHealth ( talk) 05:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If Greenland have all people recovered from COVID-19 then can it go away from the chart? Hi poland ( talk) 08:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Greece's color on main map from 50-200 cases per mil to 200-500 cases per mil (current Greece status; 203 cases per mil). NicolasMartell96 ( talk) 10:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Already done, the map maker fixed it a few hours ago
Benica11 (
talk).
00:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says "territories". Wouldn't it be better to have it listed as "territories affcted"? Kika.txt ( talk) 03:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The infobox template listing countries data is hugely consequential since Google pulls from it when someone searches for 'covid-19 deaths' or something similar.
It is using a hugely unreliable source for the United States data.
The United States data is supplied by this website: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en which states that .
The main webpage is in Chinese https://www.1point3acres.com/ which claims to be a "media-based tracker"
Following through its links you get to a medium blog post here: https://medium.com/1point3acres/about which confirms that, apparently, the site is run by Peter Sun, an undergraduate student at Duke.
Its inconsistencies are clear - the homepage claims its "media-based" but the tracker that the wikipedia page is actually linked to lists the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) as the source of its data (here: https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en scroll down).
Clicking on the CDC link takes you only to the CDC's homepage.
If you actually go to the CDC's official count, their cases are significantly different
As of 5:47am EST April 15:
https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en count is 26,114 CDC official count is 22,252 (Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html )
This is a huge discrepancy.
We should not allow a totally unverified webpage run by an individual take this prominence over a government source on one of the most important wikipedia entries. While Peter Sun's page includes both US and Canadian data it is only being used for the US data on wikipedia - Canada's data is CTV News which is a comparatively reliable source.
I therefore propose that the numbers and source are immediately corrected to the CDC official government page, which is what Peter Sun cites on his page for his United States level statistics, so he should not have grounds to object. N0thingbetter ( talk) 10:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I'm aware of
WP:NOTFORUM, but I feel this is the best place to say this, so maybe make an exception just this once?
Thank you to everyone who has worked to make Wikipedia one of the best places to get information on the pandemic, going over every detail, singling out misinformation, and providing the world with knowledge that is incredibly important during these times. To everyone who has worked on the Coronavirus Pandemic articles, everyone from the biggest contributor to the person who made a single minor edit to fix a typo: Thank you so much for helping keep the world safe. This article is of unimaginable importance, and doing it well is vital. Thank you for not just doing it well, but having a quality standard above nearly everyone's expectations.
Thanks you all. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Covidiot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for the map at the beginning of the article to have a higher category than just 1000+ cases, because then there is no distinction between 1,000 and 100,000 cases. ItsDaBunnyYT ( talk) 21:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would one count NATO on the list of sovereign territories ? Makes no sense. Please remove it, and leave as before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.15 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Should deaths of notable (celebrities, etc) people, such as Rick May, be listed on this page? Mount2010 ( talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that when one hovers over "Iran" in the table of cases, deaths etc. by country there is this note:
2. Non-official sources inside and outside Iran report significantly higher numbers of infected and dead.[66][67][68][69]
If that's worthy of being noted, should there not also be a note on the implausibility of China's numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.167.206 ( talk • contribs)
50 dead in Qom alone? Our official numbers claim (see Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Iran medical cases chart) 12 deaths in the entire republic the day that legislator's claim was made. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 00:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
abnormal fit to a quadraticclaim (which is the only remotely substantive remark you made), the cited paper that Piper42 added is explicitly quoted in the abstract as
Contrary to the usual exponential growth, a quadratic growth is the result of control interventions. It can be explained by spreading on the periphery of a bulk structure, which can be geometrical or sociological nature.Nothing about massaged statistics there.
I read why you are using this third party source, but is there any accountability? Who decided that it's reliable ? Read the disclaimer at the bottom of their website. Is Wikipedia promoting https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en ? CDC is a government agency and is therefore accountable but 1p3a... // Eatcha ( talk) 08:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
<ref name=":7">{{cite web |url=https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/features/102465.html |title=Severe Respiratory Disease associated with a Novel Infectious Agent |publisher=Government of Hong Kong |access-date=1 February 2020}}</ref> [1]
<ref name=":8">{{cite web |url=https://www.moh.gov.sg/2019-ncov-wuhan |title=Updates on Wuhan Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Local Situation |work=MoH.gov.sg |publisher=[[Ministry of Health of Singapore]] |access-date=1 February 2020}}</ref> [2] Randomuser9327 ( talk) 08:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
So, why are the two words used interchangeably? For example, the article reads: "The peak and ultimate duration of the outbreak are uncertain and may differ by location."
An outbreak is a sudden occurrence of something unwelcome, such as war or disease. So an outbreak of a pandemic is not a pandemic itself. 85.193.250.200 ( talk) 12:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! In 'International conveyances' some of them are national: f.e., Charles de Gaulle is 100% from France and USS Theodore Roosevelt is 100% from USA. National flags are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.172.131 ( talk) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has once against hit the
post-expand include size software limits. In the rendered source I see #invoke:Navbox with collapsible groups
instead of the expanded
COVID-19 template, which means that as a fallback, the software decided not to expand the COVID-19 template. Looking at the source (Ctrl-u in firefox) shows "postexpandincludesize":{"value":2095097,"limit":2097152
} at the bottom, so that without the COVID-19 template, the post-expand-include-size (PEIS) is just a tiny bit under the limit. 2000 more characters of templated material would hit the limit again.
So once again (this happened before - search the archives), some material - with a fair amount of template usage - needs to be WP:SPLIT off. Boud ( talk) 18:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"postexpandincludesize":{"value":1712316,"limit":2097152}. However, I suspect that removing the main per-territory-cases-deaths table would be strongly opposed, and much less likely to gain consensus than removing those two new sections - which are clearly important, but there are many important subtopics, and they are new; not all subtoics can be included, and new ones would have to gain consensus to push out old ones.
It's now 4632 deaths according to worldometers. [1]
"In China, estimates for the death-to-case ratio decreased from 17.3 per cent (for those with onset of symptoms from 1 to 10 January 2020) to 0.7 per cent (for those with onset of symptoms after 1 February 2020)." ( citation)
The above sentence was deleted and then restored some time ago. I'd like to delete it again... Early on, this statistic sounded very promising and it was widely cited. Now it sounds unlikely or at least irrelevant given more recent data. The world average death-to-case ratio above 6%. Even assuming that the data was accurate at that point in time, this crude fatality ratio accounts only for patients with symptom onset within the prior 19 days. The mean time to death is 18 days. Even in South Korea, where testing is very broad, they've only achieved a D/C ratio of 2.1%. - Wikmoz ( talk) 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
@ John Cummings: you just added two new sections, one on the impact of the pandemic on domestic violence, and one on the differing medical impact of the virus by sex. Per WP:DUE, I think we can fit only maybe two sentences on domestic violence in an article this high-level, and not as a separate section. For the section on sex, I think we'd be able to fit more at Coronavirus disease 2019, but again, here there can be a sentence or two at most, and not a separate section. Would you be willing to make those changes yourself? If not, I expect someone else here may need to; there just isn't room (in either a technical or editorial sense). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Condemic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
it's irresponsible not to mention treatment with hydroxychloroquine— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4880:a5e0:3507:58a2:6ed5:97f6 ( talk • contribs)
By April, four potential post-infection therapies – favipiravir, remdesivir, lopinavir and hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine) – were in the final stage of human testing.
On 12 April, a preliminary clinical trial conducted at a hospital in Brazil was stopped when several people given high doses of chloroquine for COVID-19 infection developed irregular heart rates, causing 11 deaths.[68][85]- see therapeutic index for more details of the general idea of "chloroquine kills SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, and in slightly higher doses than what is needed for malaria, kills the in vivo hosts".
Remdesivir appears to be the most promising.[117]could be extended to something like "Remdesivir appears to be the most promising,[117] while hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have a high risk of lethal overdose[ref] and as of 17 April 2020 [update] have no clinical evidence in favour of their usage for COVID-19, gained significant media attention.[ref]" Boud ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
When I look at the UK page it lists deaths from hospital figures AND in one place deaths on death certificates. I realise that each country has different ways of accounting. BUT in the case on this page it is a total to date - should these extra 6000 or so deaths also be included with a footnote. I have not done that as it would be quite contentious due to the implications of total numbers. But it would make sense to include all deaths - if not why not?
Ahecht has raised the issue we were noticing the other day of reference tooltips not being displayed because of WP:PEIS. I'm opening this conversation to explore what our options are to deal with this, and would be curious to hear from those with more technical expertise. Is there any way to increase the limit? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Rawls, John (1971). [http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&pg=PA1 ''A Theory of Justice'']. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00078-0
{{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|short=true}}
which uses 49,360 bytes.{{cite xxx}}
templates in the References section (and many more in the article). Removing the 359 templates saved 562,000 bytes.On 23 March, it was reported that New York City had 10,700 cases of the coronavirus, more than the total number of cases in South Korea.More than total of South Korea? So what? Yes, the source mentions it, but it's inane word filling. -- MarioGom ( talk) 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)